Death of a thousand cuts
Well, we know what Democrats will be doing every day until the 2008 election. Attacking, smearing, accusing, belittling, impeaching, insulting, assaulting, and generally throwing a daily tantrum until their enemies are destroyed. Al Qaeda? No, conservatives.
What a way to climb to power, eh? Through a death of a thousand cuts and a drumbeat of defeat.
Subpoenas Approved for Rice, Other Bush Officials
Kucinich Files Articles of Impeachment Against Cheney
House Panels Vote Subpoenas, Immunity in Probes on Prosecutors, War, Political Activity
The Bushies Lied About Tillman and Lynch
Man arrested in threat on GOP official
A man has been arrested in connection with an incident earlier this month, when someone pressed a rifle to the face of a Nevada Republican Party official and threatened to “take action” if President George W. Bush vetoed a particular piece of legislation. ~fox5vegas.com
Declare defeat and legislate surrender, that’s the road to power in post Vietnam America.
We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war. Senator Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding.
~Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, April 12.
It is axiomatic to say that Democrats are invested in our defeat. But why? They voted for the war. The reason is that they see political advantage in it. Democrats believed Bush, not because he played them like a Stradivarius, but because they believed their own intelligence. Bush said nothing that was not already known. Democrats voted to authorize the war because they believed that it was necessary according to the best intelligence of the time. Or did they?
I’m at the point where I just don’t care anymore. As far as I’m concerned Bush should nominate a Democrat for Veep and then step down. Good luck. Edwards perhaps. He says he’s for defeat, let him own it. It’s easy to talk about how we need to surrender, perhaps Democrats need to be in power so that they can root for America again. If that is the only way to heal this divided nation then perhaps Republicans should just sit out the next election for the good of the country.
But then would Democrats truly unite the country? Or would they set about consolidating their power and grinding their political enemies into the dust so that they never again pose a threat their power? I suspect the latter would be the case.
And why would I believe that, you might ask? Because ‘cooperation not competition’ is not the true philosophy of liberals or the left. They don’t believe in getting along with those who disagree. They believe in getting their way. They don’t believe in compromise, they believe in dissent. They believe that those who stand in their way do so out of malice and hate, not honest disagreement.
The great irony is that those who rail against hegemony the most do so because it is the wrong kind of hegemony, not because they are against the idea of hegemony in the slightest.
So after uniting with Bush on the authorization for war Democrats set about opposing the war once it had been set in motion. The idea that you would authorize an action and then demonize the one you gave approval to (to do the action) is perverse but no longer unexpected.
In retrospect, the signs of discord and division were there long before any policy like the Iraq war. The 2000 election itself was reason enough. But Democrats were actually blaming Bush for 9/11. And still do! How I thought that the Iraq war would be any different, I don’t know.
Better a dry crust with peace and quiet
than a house full of feasting, with strife.~Proverbs 17:1
Shoved into the internet 'tubes' on April 25, 2007, by Hegemonic Pundit,
under the following categories: 2006 election, 2008 election, 21st century socialism, John the future is now Edwards, afghanistan, anti-capitalism, anti-intellectuals, culture of corruption, democrats, idiotarians, impeachment, iraq, john murtha, leftists, liberal agenda, liberals, pelosi, tax increases, terror war, the left, war on terror
| Trackback URL for this post
